Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Friends- Do please forgive me for moralizing as it were on the above post, I do truly mean no offense to anyone. We all know pretty much what tother believes at this point. Just have fun! It's not likely we'll change someone's mind on his views, and unlikely too we'll change our own minds. Still, much can be learned by taking the view of a matter newly, or from the way someone on the other side of the fence sees a thing. It's up to us to do that. My hopes for this thread, and I believe Bill's was when he started it, was for a chance to do just that. Alright then, heading back to my hole...
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
ewc: My point is that the issue of the firing on Ft Sumter is secondary to the war starting. At what point and how and by whom and for what reason is all immaterial. The point is the war would start. Ft Sumter, Twiggs's surrender, Ft Pickens, firing on the Star of the West, hanging Unionists, hanging separatists- any reason, anything could have been what history gives us as the firing on Ft Sumter. That issue is entirely secondary to the fact that a separate secessionist American government was in operation opposite and within the bounds of the Federal authority. Such a situation could not go on, making the issue of Ft Sumter possible. Ft Sumter is not unimportant; it is just that it could have been anything and did not need to be Ft Sumter. I couldn't agree more with this statement, Ed. (my emphasis underlinings throughout this post.)
Originally Posted by cash As the excerpts I provided showed, it was already happening. All that was required was for Davis to decide to allow it to continue rather than go to war. Only two people could decide to start the war -- Davis and Lincoln, and Lincoln had already ruled it out. The confederate populace was already becoming nostalgic for the old Union. Lincoln's strategy of steering the middle course was working. If Davis decided that the cost of war was too great, then eventually there is peaceful reunion.
Regards, Cash
Surely you must be dreaming about this nostalgia for the old Union. Now if you mean the really old Union, the one that had been formed immediately after the split from Great Britain, that's a horse of a different color. But after what the South had been through with this Union, I say bollocks to that! The inflammatory tone and the absolute hatred exhibited even in the halls of Congress would hardly make a Southerner "nostalgic" for any part of this Union! Hal: The decision to force the South back was made prior to Sumter. Sumter just sped things up and enabled Lincoln to wave the flag to garner popular support for his aim. You've got that right, Hal! Robert E. Lee “Lincoln denounced the doctrine of the right of secession from the Union as unconstitutional, and declared his firm purpose to hold, occupy, and possess the places and property in the South belonging to the Fed. Government. This announcement was received in the South as equivalent to a declaration of war.” From reading the diaries of such people as Mary Chesnutt I don't think there is a doubt that the act of secession was met with great rejoicing. Dawna: I see. The South consisted of arrogant, petulant, and beclouded children who imposed their will by invading a foreign country, destroying it's homes and lands, and killing innocent civilians along the way. Touche' my Rebel sister, Touche'!
After having read the rest of this thread I am like Ed. I hope that we can get back to this very interesting subject that Bill has brought up. It is also worth noting that if conversation cannot be kept courteous two things will happen: 1. Ami will go on a rampage and start closing very worthwhile threads because they have been demeaned by insulting innuendo and harsh remarks that were certainly worthy of apology. To demean a teacher on these boards can have decidedly adverse effects on a young man's career. This is beyond the pale. I suggest if one cannot avoid saying something totally inappropriate, it would be best not to say anything at all. Finally, 2. Certain members of this board will find themselves conversing with the wind because their previous remarks have scalded the debate if this continues.
I ask politely for everyone to think long and hard before they write anything on these threads. Harsh words cannot be taken back and I don't think it's fair to the rest of us if threads constantly have to be closed simply because a few are disrupting the entire dialogue. About four years ago when I first came to CWT the language used was of the utmost courtesy and it was an absolute joy to belong to such a group. In the past year I have witnessed things pass between members that should never never have been said, much less allowed. Closing a thread is not the answer, ladies and gentlemen. Growing up and acting accordingly is what is needed.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
I hope that you have taken the time to check out the web site (The Great Conspiracy, by John Alexander Logan) Cash offered to help prove his case that there was a real fear, by those advocating secession, that the majority of the citizens of the South might be 'backsliding' towards the Union. The sentiments listed at this site are more than a 'dream' and constitute a real concern for those who were pushing secession.
There are other sources, even Southern ones, who also espouse this view, that if Sumter had not been fired on, there was a real chance that the Deep South would be alone and unable to sustain itself as an independent nation, if it could not keep up the drive for secession or induce other states to secede unless dramatic action was taken to cause them to join the cause.
Again, refute the source by giving something to counter it, with something of substance, as dreams are fleeting and difficult to hold onto, and way difficult to use as either a defense or offense in a debate.
As to the hatred you speak of in the halls of Congress, between Northern and Southern politicians, it does not always follow that all the citizens they represented had those same feelings to the point they would risk immediate rebellion.
If those same Southern representatives, who wished for secession, felt the citizens of their region were wanning in their zeal for secession, might not Sumter not be the irrelevant after all? Would not an armed incident be useful in prodding those reluctant ones into the secessionist fold?
After all, as many have informed me and other, the only reason the majority of the nonslaveholding whites joined the army was not to support that institution, but to repell an invading Northern army. Might not the reverse really be true, that it was a talented, clever Southern leadership that manuvered poor, old, unsuspecting Lincoln into trying to reinforce Sumter with the happy result of making the North take up arms over its contrived bombardment? That those sneaky, manipulating, Southern fire-eaters knew this would result from their war-like efforts?
Just another point of view,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Stirring the pot? Well, I guess there have been occasions where I have succumbed to the temptation to pull a few tail feathers from the Yankee Eagle. Guilty as charged.
But not on this occasion. I have no mischief in mind on this thread. I used the word "irrelevant" because the war was fought over secession rather than slavery. Slavery was a factor in the process which lead to secession and can therefore be said to be an indirect cause of the war. But not a direct one. Therefore it is not directly relevant to a discussion of what both sides actually fought over. Or, to put it in perhaps simpler terms, North and South argued over slavery but they fought over secession. How's that?
Re Sumter, which I see as very much the side issue here, I think there is a plain and irreconcilable difference of opinion over the question of whether war was inevitable regardless of what went down in Charleston harbour. Because I happen to believe that the war was inevitable it follows that I characterise the firing on Sumter as irrelevant, as not a part of the causal process.
Might not the reverse really be true, that it was a talented, clever Southern leadership that manuvered poor, old, unsuspecting Lincoln into trying to reinforce Sumter with the happy result of making the North take up arms over its contrived bombardment?
You surely jest, my friend. "Poor, old, unsuspecting Lincoln"? Abe was a man of extraordinary intellectual vigour. I question whether he was ever "unsuspecting" in his entire life. The idea that he could be out-thought by any member of the Confederate Cabinet is laughable.
Quote:
There are other sources, even Southern ones, who also espouse this view, that if Sumter had not been fired on, there was a real chance that the Deep South would be alone and unable to sustain itself as an independent nation, if it could not keep up the drive for secession or induce other states to secede unless dramatic action was taken to cause them to join the cause.
On many previous occasions I have asked you to fetch your world atlas. I'm going to do so again. Look at the area covered by the first wave of seceding states. Now look at the size of countries on the other continents of the globe. Even without the states of the upper south, the C.S.A. was still larger than many, many other countries.
What is this American obsession with size? Nothing appears to have any value unless it is huge. Is it a kind of national neurosis? Why do your automobiles have to be so darned big? Don't you think they look a little vulgar? Why do your portions of food have to be so big? I seriously question whether some of you believe that countries the size of Holland or Belgium or Britain constitute proper nations at all.
Go tell it to the Southern leadership of the time, about the American obsession with size. This was their concern, not mine, when they voiced the opinion that they needed more states involved in the rebellion to pull off a chance at nationhood.
As to the size of other nations, I have no problem with some of the tiny nations of Europe calling themselves such, if it makes them feel alright with themselves. But I do insist on large portions when I dine.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Bill- Thank you for the clarification; always helps to clear the field for fire.
Neil- Bravo for that twist- the impulsive fireeaters pulling a political coup over on Old Abe and compelling the firing on Ft Sumter to start a war which would crystallize the matter on 'Us' vs 'Them' lines.
My view on this is as emotionalism has been playing a significant part of these discussions 150 yrs after the fact, how much more significant was it then? Cash's and your discussions have been been very logical, and particularly Cash has pointed out relevant issues concerning Unionist conditions at the time. The problem is as I see it that calm and logic were no longer driving forces and matters were entirely driven by emotionalism and extremism. The Southern leaders and the fireeaters at the secession crises were driving events. They were not in lock step with the Southeren populace and were certainly fearful of latent Unionism in the Southland. Even in this fervor, secession was not voted through in some Deep South States easily and the Upper South States were hanging back. Really, as the secession crisis went on, the secessionists could not allow emotion to backslide, it had to stay to the fore, and because of that, events had to continue to churn. Provoking a war would indeed be high on that list and without question a crystallizing event. The fact that by this time a Confederate government existed at all meant all the norms were out the window, and no matter how much the Federal government temporized and unionist feeling in the South looked for answers, such attitudes and actions were not going to effect how the game would be played out, save inversely, by that I mean the effect this would have on the active pushing parties- the secessionists. It did not behoove the secessionists to sit on their thumbs at this time, action was required, not contemplation and consensus. By this point, action was the name of the game, and action was the fireaters middle name.
In an earlier post, Cash offered that a hotheaded secessionist in Charleston was not likely to start a war by firing a cannon at Ft Sumter. All Davis would have to do would be to stop the firing, send a note of explanation to the Federal authorities, and continue on the road of diplomacy and agreement- if that was his desire. This in answer to my assertion that Davis had to start the firing to prevent the hotheads from usurping his authority and starting the war on their own. My contention is that all of Charleston was hotheaded and likely to start the war on their own. Once the firing started by whomever it wasn't going to stop. Davis would not be able to, had he wanted, to stop it. He was going to have to ride this beast somehow, and had to figure out how best he could do that. Given the temper of the times, he could not go in and take the South Carolinians away from the guns, as much as he might have liked to; his regime was just not powerful or influential enough to usurp public feeling and public feeling was hotly arrogant and hotheaded and was running the show in Charleston. Davis wanted no war, at least not yet; he knew perhaps better than anyone that the South was just not ready. But in the end, he would have to yield to expediency, because that was the state of affairs at the time.
So it behooved the fireeaters and secessionists to start a war or have a war start. With this i agree, and that's just it- they needed a war, and Ft Sumter was mighty handy. But it still could have been any event. Imagine how things would have looked if Buchanan had pressed the issue with the fort and arsenal seizures and the firing on the Star of the West. He had more provocation than any president could conceivably want. President Polk started his war against Mexico on a fraction of provocation. Buchanan didn't (sadly) because he didn't want to inflame affairs. The problem was that the situation was already so acute and so inflamed that the likelihood of calm and reason holding sway was minimal at best. History shows it.
As to the question of President Lincoln maiintaining the status quo in regards secession and Ft Sumter and holding a middle course. He could not do so indefinitely. He could not believe Unionism was dead in the South, and he believed that given time, it would come to the fore. He also knew that time was a precious commodity. Sooner or later, the tug was going to have to come. And he did have his own power base- the North and those who elected him to office, to think about. If he was going to pull out of Ft Sumter, he had to consider it against the feeling at home. General Scott's Anaconda Plan whereby direct force against the South was not used, but great pressure exerted would indeed have been ideal. But again, he realized it would not have addressed the needs of his political base with his need to assuage the South. He was going to have to put this Unionism to the test at some point to see how faithful it was. The fireaters were going to keep at it until some definition must come focused. And in this, Lincoln was going to have no choice but to acquiesce, indeed it behooved him to do so. So much so that he might just go on and do so proactively. But as Bill says above, Lincoln didn't understand what was going on? No, he knew all he needed do was wait for the fireeaters to push till he didn't yield. That point was Ft Sumter. But again, it could have been at any point where Lincoln decided it was time for a showdown. It must come, and come it would, for emotion and hotheadness, not calm and reason, were driving this train on to its wreckage.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
Hi All:
Perhaps I'll take a small gander, rather than a greatly endowed Eagles viewpoint, upon the irrelevence of Fort Sumter as the primary causation of the WBTS.
Something, somewhere caused gross consternation between North and South which prompted all the darn fuss kicked-up prior to 1861 which planted 600,000 plus souls in cold earthen homes.
I propose to all, the idea, that both North and South originated in 1776 as, and continues to remain to this day, a most diverse and opposite culture encompassed by a common Country proper. We vote our wills differently, interpret the Constitution differently, speak accentually different, react to matters differently, hold agendas respectively different, eat different type foods and view foreign affairs differently. Did I say we even debate differently? :-)
My opinion is the true nucleus of the war derived from cultural differences. All else,ie. Sumter, slavery and everything not covered by my humble theory, were only symptoms of the 'disease.' The 'disease' was cultural difference through emigration with pre-conceived ideals carried to the respective sectional regions. From 1776 forth, these ideals clashed like waves upon an ocean.
What do you think?
December 10th, - Edward J. Pringle writes me from San Francisco on November 30th: "I see that Mr. Chesnut has resigned and that South Carolina is hastening into a Convention, perhaps to secession. Mr. Chesnut is probably to be President of the Convention. I see all of the leaders in the State are in favor of secession. But I confess I hope the black Republicans will take the alarm and submit some treaty of peace that will enable us now and forever to settle the question, and save our generation from the prostration of business and the decay of prosperity that must come both to the North and South from a disruption of the Union.
December 27th. - Mrs. Gidiere came in quietly from her marketing to-day, and in her neat, incisive manner exploded this bombshell: "Major Anderson has moved into Fort Sumter, while Governor Pickens slept serenely." The row is fast and furious now. State after State is taking its forts and fortresses. They say if we had been left out in the cold alone, we might have sulked a while, but back we would have had to go, and would merely have fretted and fumed and quarreled among ourselves. We needed a little wholesome neglect. Anderson has blocked that game, but now our sister States have joined us, and we are strong. I give the condensed essence of the table-talk: "Anderson has united the cotton States. Now for Virginia!" "Anderson has opened the ball." Those who want a row are in high glee. Those who dread it are glum and thoughtful enough.
A letter from Susan Rutledge: "Captain Humphrey folded the United States Army flag just before dinnertime. Ours was run up in its place. You know the Arsenal is in sight. What is the next move? I pray God to guide us. We stand in need of wise counsel; something more than courage. The talk is: 'Fort Sumter must be taken; and it is one of the strongest forts.' How in the name of sense are they to manage? I shudder to think of rash moves."
Last edited by cedarstripper; 10-06-2005 at 12:30 PM.
The fireaters were going to keep at it until some definition must come focused.
The thing is, the fire eaters weren’t in charge of the Confederate government. Yancey wasn’t the President. Policy was determined by a President and Cabinet who were essentially conservative.
When people talk about how the Confederacy should have negotiated rather than fired on Sumter, I am puzzled. Firstly, Washington didn’t recognise the C.S. government or its commissioners. The medium for negotiation, therefore, didn’t exist. Secondly, much is made of the obligations on Lincoln which came with his office, of how he had to do certain things because of the presidential oath etc. But nobody seems to consider that identical obligations fell on Jeff Davis. I am aware of no nation on earth which would allow its head of state to acquiesce in the presence of foreign troops on its soil. The idea that he could allow months to go by with U.S. military personnel on Confederate territory is absurd and unfair. How long would Lincoln have tolerated the presence of a foreign garrison in New York harbour? Isn’t this a case of double standards?
Rob makes an interesting point about the inherent cultural differences between the two regions. As I have asked before, can anyone point to a period of peacetime between 1776 and 1861 when North and South weren’t pulling in opposite directions? To what extent was this ever really a single country before secession? And does this cultural diversity, amounting effectively (one might argue) to separate nationhood, weaken the case for the enforcement of the Union?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
